Cisco Systems, Inc. v. Innovative Wireless Solutions, LLC

Filing 66

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER, ( Settlement Conference set for 3/9/2015 02:00 PM before Judge Lee Yeakel,). Signed by Judge Lee Yeakel. (dm)

FilLED
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AUSTIN DIVISION
CISCO SYSTEMS, INC.,
PLAINTIFF,

2OI5JAN-8

PtI

§

§
§

V.

§

CAUSE NO. 1 :13-CV-00492-LY

§

INNOVATIVE WIRELESS SOLUTIONS,
LLC,
DEFENDANT.

§
§
§

§

RUCKUS WIRELESS, INC.,
PLAINTIFF,

§
§
§

V.

§

CAUSE NO. 1:1 3-CV-00504-LY

§

INNOVATIVE WIRELESS SOLUTIONS,
LLC,
DEFENDANT.

§
§
§

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER REGARDING
CLAIMS CONSTRUCTION
Before the court are the parties' Joint Claim Construction Statement filed January 13, 2014

(Clerk's Doe. No. 36)1 and Supplemental Claim Construction Statement filed February 21, 2014
(Clerk's Doe. No. 41); Plaintiffs' Opening Claim Construction Brief filed March 4, 2014 (Clerk's
Doe. No. 44); Defendant's Opening Claim Construction Brief filed March 4, 2014 (Clerk's Doe. No.

45); Plaintiffs' Reply Claim Construction Brief filed April 2, 2014 (Clerk's Doe. No. 46);

Defendant's Response to Plaintiffs' Opening Claim Construction Brief filed April 2,2014 (Clerk's
Doe. No. 47); Plaintiffs' Supplemental Claim Construction Brief Regarding Indefiniteness Issues

At an August 28, 2013 pretrial conference, the court consolidated these cases for pretrial
purposes. Although parallel filings were made in both cases, unless otherwise noted, this order uses
docket reference numbers from cause number 1:13-CV-00492-LY. The constructions set forth in
this order apply in both cases.

3:t3

filed July 3, 2014 (Clerk's Doe. No. 57); Defendant's Response to Plaintiffs' Supplemental Claim

Construction Brief Regarding Indefiniteness Issues filed July 17, 2014 (Clerk's Doe. No, 58);

Defendant's Notice of Supplemental Authority Regarding the Federal Circuit's Opinion in Hill-Rorn
Servs.

Stryker Corp filed July 17,2014 (Clerk's Doe. No. 59); Plaintiffs' Response to Defendant's

v.

Notice of Supplemental Authority filed August 8, 2014 (Clerk's Doe. No. 60), and the claim
construction presentations of the parties.

The court held a claim-construction hearing on May 28, 2014. See Markman

v.

Westview

Instruments, Inc., 52 F.3d 967, 976 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (en bane), aff'd, 517 U.S. 370 (1996). After

considering the patents and their prosecution history, the parties' claim-construction briefs and
additional filings, the applicable law regarding claim construction, and argument of counsel, the

court now renders its order with regard to claim construction.

1.

Introduction
The court renders this memorandum opinion and order to construe the claims in U.S. Patents

No. 5,912,895 (the "'895 Patent"), 6,327,264 (the "264 Patent"), and 6,587,473 (the "'473 Patent")

(collectively, the "patents-in-suit" or the "Terry patents"). The '473 Patent is a continuation of the

'264 Patent, which is a continuation of the '895 Patent. All patents share a common specification
and drawings. The patents-in-suit generally relate to a method for communicating information
packets over long distances.

Plaintiffs Cisco Systems, Inc. ("Cisco") and Rukus Wireless, Inc. ("Rukus")2 seek declaratory

judgment against Defendant Innovative Wireless Solutions, LLC ("Innovative Wireless"). Cisco
asserts that the patents-in-suit are not infringed and are invalid. See 28 U.S.C.

2.

§

2201, 2202.

Legal Principles of Claim Construction
Determining infringement is a two-step process. See Markman, 52 F.3d at 976 ("[There are]

two elements of a simple patent case, construing the patent and determining whether infringement

occurred

.

.

."). First, the meaning and scope of the relevant claims must be ascertained. Id.

Second, the properly construed claims must be compared to the accused device. Id. Step one, claim

construction, is the current issue before the court.
The court construes patent claims without the aid ofajury. See Markman 52 F.3d at 979.
The "words of a claim 'are generally given their ordinary and customary meaning." Phillips

AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en bane) (quoting Vitronics Corp.

v.

v.

Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1582 (Fed. Cir. 1996)). The ordinary and customary meaning of
a claim term is the meaning that the term would have to a person

of ordinary skill in the art in

question at the time of the invention. Id. at 1313. The person of ordinary skill in the art is deemed
to have read the claim term in the context of the entire patent. Id.

Therefore, to ascertain the

meaning of claims, courts must look to the claims, the specification, and the patent's prosecution

history. Id. at

13

14-17; Markrnan, 52 F.3d at 979.

As the arguments and interests of Plaintiffs Cisco Systems, Inc. and Ruckus Wireless, Inc.
do not diverge with regard to claim construction, the court will refer to Plaintiffs collectively as
2

"Cisco."
3

Claim language guides the court's construction of claim terms. Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1314.

"[T]he context in which a term is used in the asserted claim can be highly instructive." Id. Other
claims, asserted and unasserted, can provide additional instruction because "terms are normally used

consistently throughout the patent." Id. Differences among claims, such as additional limitations
in dependent claims, can provide further guidance. Id.

Claims must also be read "in view of the specification, of which they are a part." Markman,
52 F.3d at 979. The specification "is always highly relevant to the claim construction analysis.

Usually, it is dispositive; it is the single best guide to the meaning of a disputed term." Teleflex, Inc.
v.

Ficosa N Am. Corp., 299 F.3d 1313, 1325 (Fed.Cir.2002) (internal citations omitted). In the

specification, a patentee may define a term to have a meaning that differs from the meaning that the
term would otherwise possess.

Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1316.

In such cases, the patentee's

lexicography governs. Id. The specification may also reveal a patentee's intent to disclaim or
disavow claim scope. Id. Such intentions are dispositive for claim construction. Id. Although the
specification may indicate that certain embodiments are preferred, particular embodiments appearing
in the specification will not be read into the claims when the claim language is broader than the

embodiment. Electro Med. Sys., S.A.

v.

Cooper L,fe Scis., Inc., 34 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1994).

The prosecution history is another tool to supply the proper context for claim construction

because it demonstrates how the inventor understood the invention. Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1317. A

patentee may serve as his own lexicographer and define a disputed term in prosecuting a patent.
Home Diagnostics, Inc.

v.

LifeScan, Inc., 381 F.3d 1352, 1356 (Fed.Cir.2004).

Similarly,

distinguishing the claimed invention over the prior art during prosecution indicates what the claims
do not cover. Spectrum

Int'l

v.

Sterilite Corp., 164 F.3d 1372, 1378-79 (Fed.Cir.1988). The

ri

doctrine of prosecution disclaimer precludes patentees from recapturing specific meanings that were
previously disclaimed during prosecution. Omega Eng 'g, Inc.

v.

Raytek Corp., 334 F. 3d 1314, 1323

(Fed.Cir.2003). Disclaimers of claim scope must be clear and unambiguous. Middleton, Inc. v. 3M
Co., 311 F.3d 1384, 1388 (Fed.Cir.2002).

Although "less significant than the intrinsic record in determining the legally operative
meaning of claim language," the court may rely on extrinsic evidence to "shed useful light on the

relevant art." Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1317 (quotation omitted). Teclmical dictionaries and treatises
may help the court understand the underlying technology and the manner in which one skilled in the
art might use claim terms, but such sources may also provide overly broad definitions or may not be

indicative of how terms are used in the patent. Id. at 1318. Similarly, expert testimony may aid the
court in determining the particular meaning of a term in the pertinent field, but "conclusoiy,

unsupported assertions by experts as to the definition of a claim term are not useful." Id. Generally,
extrinsic evidence is "less reliable than the patent and its prosecution history in determining how to
read claim terms." Id. Extrinsic evidence may be useful when considered in the context of the
intrinsic evidence, id. at 13 19, but it cannot "alter a claim construction dictated by a proper analysis

of the intrinsic evidence." On-Line Techs., Inc.

v.

1133, 1139 (Fed. Cir. 2004).

5

Bodenseewerk Perkin-Elmer GmhH, 386 F.3d

3.

Discussion

Disputed Terms

The parties dispute the construction of2O terms. The following table summarizes the parties'

proposed constructions of the disputed terms.

Cisco s Proposed Construction

1.

Innovative Wireless's Proposed
Construction

[no construction necessary]

Term/Phrase

"Techniques compatible with

'

"CSMA!CD"

connecting to networks such as
Ethernet networks, whereadevice
that wishes to transmit on the
network listens and checks to see if
the channel is free for sending
data. If the channel is not free, or
if a collision is detected during
transmission, the device waits for
a small amount of time and tries
again."

'895: (Claims 1,6,7, 15, 16,
27-37, 40, 48, 51-53 )
'264: (Claims 5, 8)
'473: (Claims

1, 10, 11, 17, 18,

25, 26, 30, 32, 33, 35, 3 9-42)

2. "CSMA/CD interface"

'895: (Claims 1, 6, 7, 15, 16,
27-37, 40, 48, 51-53)

35, 39-42)

1, 10,

[Plain and ordinary meaning]

For

the

purposes

comprehension,

of jury

Innovative

Wireless proposes the following
construction:
"CSMA/CD": See above

'264: (Claims 5, 8)

'473: (Claims

"an interface to a CSMA!CD path
or terminal device"

25, 26, 30,

3. "bidirectional

"a wired communications path for
exchanging information between
two endpoints"

communications path";
"communications path"

[Plain and ordinary meaning]

If the court believes a construction
of "bidirectional" is necessary for

the

'895: (Claims 1,3-12, 15, 17-20,
27-37, 40, 48, 49, 51-53)

purposes

of jury

comprehension, then Innovative
Wireless proposes:

'264: (Claims 5-9)
"bidirectional" / "bidirectionally":
Capable of transmission in either
or both directions.

'473: (Claims

1, 3, 4, 7-9, 11,
15, 17-19, 22-24, 26, 30-35, 37,
38, 40-42)

[no construction necessary]

4. "information frame"

A group of bits transmitted over a
network as a unit which includes a
data field.

"encapsulating intact Ethernet
frames containing information
packets in information frames"

[Plain and ordinary meaning]

'895: (Claims 3, 4)

'473: (Claims 2, 12, 13, 36)
"enveloping information
packets in information frames";
"enveloping information
corresponding to at least one of
the [...] information packets in
at least one [...] information
frame"
5.

For

the

purposes

comprehension,
"encapsulating an intact Ethernet
frame containing at least one
information packet in one
information frame"

Wireless proposes the following
constructions:
"information packets": A unit of

data

'895: (Claim 3)

of jury

Innovative

for

transmission

over

networks of some finite size and
which may be transmitted over a
network by being enveloped in one
or more frames.

'473: (Claims 2, 12, 36)

"information frames": See above.
6. "control information"

"information provided in a data or
control frame by the [master

modern/first end/first

'895:(Claimsl,4,5,48)
'264: (Claims 5, 8)

'473: (Claims
30, 31, 35)

1, 11, 14, 16,

26,

modem/control unit/control unit
ofthefirstunit/anotherapparatus]
that dictates when information
can be communicated over the
communications path"

[Plain and ordinary meaning]

7. "supplying information

"providing information packets to
the communications path under
control of and in response to
received control information"

packets [...] to the
communications path in
dependence upon the control
information"
'895:

[Plain and ordinary meaning]

For

the

purposes

comprehension,

of jury

Innovive

Wireless proposes the following
construction:

(Claim 1)

"information packets": See above.
"wherein the control
information and the dependence
on the control information
are arranged to avoid collisions
between information
[.
packets communicated from the
first buffer to the second buffer
and information packets
communicated from the third
buffer to the fourth buffer"
8.

[.

.

.]

.]

'895:

"wherein information packets
from the third buffer are supplied
to the communications path only
in response to control information
so that a communication from the
third buffer to the fourth buffer

cannot

occur

when

[Plain and ordinary meaning]

For

the

of jury
Innovative

purposes

comprension,

Wireless proposes the following
constructions:

a

communication from the first
buffer to the second buffer is
present on the communications
path"

"collision": The condition where
transmissions on a channel
overlap, preventing successful
transmission.

(Claim 1)

"buffer": A device or storage area
used to temporarily store data sent
or received over a network.
"infOrmation packets": See above

"a unit that performs the
necessary conversion between the
Ethernet frames and the ECAP

9. "control unit"
'895:

(Claim

48)

'264: (Claims

5,

8)

[Plain and ordinary meaning]

data frames, and generates and
responds to the ECAP control and
response frames"

'473: (Claim 30)
10. "control unit is responsive
to control information, from
another apparatus coupled to the

communications path"
'264: (Claim 8)

"the control unit permits the
supply of information to the
communications path only in
response to control information
received by the control unit"

[Plain and ordinary meaning]

11.

"half duplex

communications"; "half duplex
maimer"
'895: (Claim 48)

'264: (Claims 5, 8)
'473: (Claims

1, 2, 11,

"form of communication in which
communication signals are
provided to the communications
path so that information is
traveling on the communications
path in only one direction at any
given moment in time"

For

the

purposes

comprehension,

of jury

Innovative

Wireless proposes the following
constructions:

"half duplex": Transmission in
either direction on a channel, but

26, 30,

35, 36)

only in one direction at a time.

12. "using half duplex
communications controlled by
the first modem"

'473: (Claims

[Plain and ordinary meaning]

1,

"where the information is [Plain and ordinary meaning]
travelling on the path in only one
direction at a time and under For the purposes of jury
control of the first modem"
comprehension, Innovative

35)

Wireless proposes the following
constructions:

"half duplex": See above.
13. "master modem"; "slave
modem"

'473: (Claim 26)

"a modem at a first end of the

[Plain and ordinary meaning]

bidirectional communications
path that controls how all

For

communications are supplied to
the path"

the

of jury
Innovative

purposes

comprehension,

Wireless proposes the following
constructions:

"a modem at a second end of the
bidirectional communications "master modem":
A modem
path that supplies information to having control over other
the path only in response to modem(s).
control information received from
the master modem"
"slave modem": A modem which
is controlled by a master modem.

14. "multiplexing the modem"

[Plain and ordinary meaning]

[Indefinite]

For

'895: (Claims 12, 20)

the

purposes

comprehension,

of jury

Innovative

Wireless proposes the following
constructions:

"multiplexing" / "multiplexed":
Techniques for transmitting two or
more signals over a channel, such
as interleaving transmissions or
subdividing a common channel.

15. "multiplexing signals

of the

[Indefinite]

[Plain and ordinary meaning]

To the extent that this phrase is
capable of construction, it should
be construed as "combining
[signals of the first modem] for
transmission as a single signal"

For

first modern"

'473: (Claims 5, 20)

the

purposes

'rnultiplexer.

for
multiplexed cormections via
respective buffers to respective
communication paths"

'895: (Claim 51)

.

.

Innovative

comprehension,

Wireless proposes the following
constructions:

"multiplexing"
See above.
16.

of jury

/

"multiplexed":

"device for combining the [Plain and ordinary meaning]
information packets received by
the first unit from multiple For the purposes of jury
communication paths, each path comprehension, Innovative
associated with a connection and Wireless proposes the following
constructions:
buffer in the first unit"
"multiplexing"
See above.

/

"multiplexed":

"buffers": See above.

10

17. "MAC-layer packet

[Indefinite]

[Plain and ordinary meaning]

grouping of data that is grouped
to fit into one MAC-layer packet
of CSMA/CD networks"
'473: (Claims

1, 11,

For

the

purposes

comprehension,

of jury

Innovative

Wireless proposes the following
constructions:

26, 30, 35)

"MAC-layer" I "MAC layer": The
layer of a network which provides
functions between the physical
layer and the logical link control
layer, including controlling access
to the communication channel(s).
"packet": A unit of data for
transmission over networks of
some finite size and which may be
transmitted over a network by
being enveloped in one or more
frames.

"CSMAICD": See above.
18. "MAC layer grouping of
information on the CSMA/CD
path"

"an Ethernet frame at the MAC
layer"

[Plain and ordinary meaning]

For

the

purposes of jury
Innovative

comprehension,
'473: (Claim 41)

Wireless proposes the following
constructions:

"CSMAICD": See above.

"MAC-layer" / "MAC layer": See
above.

11

half duplex
communications are MAC-layer
half-duplex such that once
information corresponding to a
first MAC-layer packet grouping
of data has begun to be
transmitted into the bidirectional
communications path the
information corresponding to the
first MAC-layer packet grouping
of data is completely transmitted
into the bidirectional
communications path before
information corresponding to a
second MAC-layer packet
grouping of data is allowed to
begin to be transmitted into the
bidirectional communications
path"
19. "the

"once a frame has begun to be
th e
o n
trans m t ted

[Plain and ordinary meaning]

i

communications

path,

the

transmission must be received at
the other end of the path before a
second frame can be transmitted
in the opposite direction on the
communications path"

For the

of jury

purposes

comprehension,

Innovative

Wireless proposes the following
constructions:

"half duplex": See above.
"MAC-layer" I "MAC layer": See
above.
"packet": See above.

"bidirectional" "bidirectionally":
See above.
/

'473: (Claim 35)
20. "changing direction of

communication of MAC layer
groupings of information ...
after the completion of
transmission of the information
corresponding to the first
information packet"

"changing direction of flow of
frames on the communications
path only after a transmitted
frame has been received at the
other end of the communications
path"

[Plain and ordinary meaning]

For

the

of jury
Innovative

purposes

comprehension,

Wireless proposes the following
constructions:

"MAC-layer" / "MAC layer": See
above.

'473: (Claim 40)

"information packet": See above.

12

1.

"CSMA/CD"
The initialism "CSMA/CD" stands for "Carrier Sense Multiple Access with Collision

Detection." The parties disagree that the term CSMA/CD needs to be construed. Cisco contends that
CSMA/CD is a well-known protocol defined by the IEEE 802.3 Working Group3 and that the patents-

in-suit defer to the published IEEE standard. Thus, Cisco argues, a skilled artisan at the time of the

patent would understand the use of the term CSMA/CD. Further, Cisco argues that Innovative

Wireless's proposed construction is neither helpful nor accurate.
Innovative Wireless contends that CSMA/CD is a term thejury cannot readily understand and
that Innovative Wireless's proposed construction is supported by the specification and the IEEE 802.3
standard. Innovative Wireless directs the court to the sentence in the specification that states: "The
term CSMA/CD is used herein to refer generically to this technology." '895 Patent, 1:38-40.

Innovative Wireless argues that this sentence indicates that CSMA/CD is used throughout the patents-

in-suit to describe any network technology that employs a contention scheme similar to the 802.3
scheme. Innovative Wireless further argues that the contention scheme contained in its proposed

construction is consistent with the contention scheme overview in the 802.3 standard.
Moreover, Innovative Wireless contends that the "MA" in CSMA/CD shows that CSMA/CD
is a technology that relates to cormecting to a network. Innovative Wireless argues that "multiple

access" shows that the technology relates to connecting to networks in addition to facilitating

communications.

The Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers ("IEEE") is a professional association
dedicated to advancing technological innovation. The IEEE 802.3 Working Group is the subgroup
of IEEE that develops and publishes standards for Ethernet networks. IEEE, IEEE cit a Glance
(August 11, 2014), http://www.ieee.org/about/today/ataglance.html.
13

In light of the clear language contained in the patents' specification, the court concludes that

the patentee acted as his own lexicographer and specifically defined the term's use in the context of
the patents. The specification defines CSMA/CD:

Different tecimologies can be used to facilitate communications on any
LAN4 and throughout the Network, the most common being
(CSMA/CD) teclmology. This is documented in IEEE Standard 802,3
The 802.3 Standard is based on the 1985 Version 2 Standard for
the two
Ethernet and, although there are some differences
Standards are largely interchangeable and can be considered equivalent
as far as this invention is concerned. The term "CSMA/CD" is used
herein to refer generically to this technology. Using CSMA/CD,
packets of data are communicated in frames that are generally referred
to as Ethernet frames. This term is also used herein, regardless of
whether the frames comply with the 802.3 Standard or the Ethernet
Standard.

...

'895 Patent, 1:25-45 (footnote added). CSMAICD is a technology, documented in the IEEE 802.3
standard, used to facilitate network communications. The 802.3 standard is based on the 1985

Version

2

Standard for Ethernet ("Ethernet 2 Standard"). As far as this invention is concerned, the

two standards are equivalent. In the patents-in-suit, CSMA/CD is used to generically refer to the

technology as defined in either standard. Moreover, the specification references the documented
IEEE standard when describing a network technology that uses CSMA/CD. The specification further
references the IEEE standard when describing the contention scheme employed in CSMA/CD.

Cisco's argument that the term should be given its ordinary and customary meaning fails.
There is a heavy presumption that the term carries its ordinary and customary meaning; however, this

presumption is overcome when the patentee acted as his own lexicographer and clearly set forth a

The initialism "LAN" stands for Local Area Network.
14

definition of the disputed claim term. CCS Fitness, Inc.

v.

Brunswick Corp., 288 F.3d 1359, 1366

(Fed. Cir. 2002).

Innovative Wireless's position also misses the mark. Innovative Wireless relies on the use

of "generically" in the specification to argue for a particularly broad interpretation. However, within
the context of the paragraph, the word generically refers to CSMAICD as defined in either the 802.3

Standard or the Ethernet 2 Standard.

As the patents-in-suit explain, the two standards are

interchangeable and equivalent as far as this invention is concerned.
The court construes the term CSMAICD to mean "CSMAICD (Carrier Sense Multiple

Access with Collision Detection) as defined in either the IEEE 802.3 Standard or the 1985

Version 2 Standard for Ethernet."5

2. "CSMA/CD interface"

The parties disagree whether this term needs construction. Innovative Wireless argues that
the court's construction of CSMA/CD combined with the plain and ordinaiy meaning of "interface"
is the proper construction. Cisco argues that the specification provides specific lexicographical

guidance to the meaning of this term as it is used throughout the patents-in-suit. Innovative Wireless
argues that Cisco's proffered construction is not directly supported by the specification, and what

support there is describes preferred or alternative embodiments.

These standards may be incomprehensible to a jury. This construction captures the court's
sense of the appropriate meaning of CSMA/CD, but the court may very well refine this construction
before trial.
15

Cisco's construction is based on the following passage from the specification:
The invention further provides a modem for communicating
information packets of Ethernet frames. comprising: a control unit;
an interface for supplying and receiving information packets of
The interface can comprise a CSI IA/CD interface
Ethernet frames.
to a CSMA!CD path, or it can comprise a direct interface to a terminal
device.
.

.

.

.

.

'895 Patent, 6:6-25 (emphasis added).
The court concludes that Cisco's construction improperly limits the term due to Cisco's

reliance on a specification passage describing an alternate embodiment of the invention. The
specification uses the term "CSMA/CD interface" over 20 times.

However, the term is used

generally, with no specific indication that the patentee intended a definition different than the plain
and ordinary meaning of interface combined with the patentee's clear definition of CSMA/CD.6

"Interface," on its own, is a regularly understood term, and is used in a wide variety of contexts within
the patent. There is no evidence within the claims or the specification that the "interface" in

CSMA/CD interface differs from the usage of "interface" elsewhere in the patents-in-suit.
The court concludes, consistent with the term's usage throughout the patents-in-suit, and

consistent with the presumption that claim terms are to be given their plain and ordinary meaning,

"CSMA/CD interface" is to be given its plain and ordinary meaning.

3.

"bidirectional communications path" I "communications path"
The dispute over this term may be summed up succinctly: do the Terry patents, read in their

entirety, limit the disclosed (bidirectional) communications path to solely wired embodiments?

See

discussion

supra, pp.

13-15.

Cisco argues that the specification clearly demonstrates that this invention's sole purpose is

providing network access over long-distance two-wire lines. Cisco notes that the patents-in-suit are

titled "Information Network Access Apparatus and Methods for Communicating Information Packets
Via Telephone Lines," and that the patents-in-suit state at the very beginning that "[tjhis invention
is particularly concerned with.

.

.

communicating information packets,.

.

.

via two-wire lines such

as telephone subscriber lines." '895 Patent, 1:6-10. Moreover, Cisco argues that the patents-in-suit

disclaim any network access paths, including a wire path, that are short enough to support
conventional, previously known network protocols. Cisco also contends that a wired communication

path is the defining characteristic of all variations ofthe disclosed embodiments. Cisco further argues
that the specification's failure to refer to other then-known types of mediums in conjunction with the

invention is evidence of purposeful intent to limit the invention's scope to a wired communication
path. Cisco argues that wireless communication paths were well-known at the time, but the patents-

in-suit never mention a wireless path.

Innovative Wireless contends that the term should be given its broadest ordinary meaning
consistent with the written description. Innovative Wireless notes that independent Claims 42, 56,
and 71 of the '895 patent recite specific wired communications paths and that independent Claims
1

and

3

of the '264 patent recite a communications path that comprises a two-wire telephone

subscriber line. Innovative Wireless further notes dependent Claims 13, 21, 23, and 25 of the '895

patent and dependent Claims 6, 21, 27, and 28 of the '473 recite a two-wire limitation. Innovative
Wireless argues that the claim language itself explicitly contemplates a communications path that is

broader than a two-wire line. Innovative Wireless objects that Cisco's construction improperly
imports a limitation from the preferred embodiment into the claims. Innovative Wireless contends

17

that the invention's general purpose is to connect devices to CSMA/CD networks over a medium for
which CSMA/CD technology is not suitable. According to Innovative Wireless, addressing the
distance problem is merely an object of the invention along with low cost and high data rates, rather

than the primary object of the invention
A court may depart from the plain and ordinary meaning of a claim term in only two instances:

lexicography and disavowal. Hill-Rom Servs., Inc.

v.

Stryker Corp., 755 F.3d 1367, 1371 (Fed. Cir.

2014). Neither side argues that the patentee here acted as his own lexicographer to define the

communications-path terms in a way specific to the patents-in-suit. Therefore, to conclude that the
term requires construction beyond its plain and ordinary meaning, the court would need to find "that
the specification [or prosecution history] make[] clear that the invention does not include a particular

feature, or is clearly limited to a particular form of the invention." Id. (internal citations and
quotations omitted). "[A]bsent some language in the specification or prosecution history suggesting
that the [limiting feature] is important, essential, necessary, or the present invention,' there is no
basis to nanow the plain and ordinary meaning of the term.

.

.

.

There are no magic words that must

be used, but to deviate from the plain and ordinary meaning of a claim term to one of skill in the art,

the patentee must, with some language, indicate a clear intent to do so in the patent." Id. at 1373.

After thorough consideration of the entire specification, the court finds that the Terry Patents
are solely focused on communicating information packets long distances over wired communication

paths. The repeated reference to two-wire lines and telephone lines emphasizes that the inventor was

focused on this transmission medium as the core of the new technology. The specification identifies
the protocol that lies at the heart of the invention and forms the basis of the patented tecimology:

18

Communications between the master modem 34 and the slave modern
32 are carried out in accordance with a new point-to-point protocol
which uses collision avoidance to communicate Ethernet frames
between the modems. This protocol is described below and for
convenience is referred to herein as ECAP .
The protocol and
modems simply serve to replace a direct (short-distance) connection
between the interface 30 and the twisted pair wiring 36 by a remote
connection via the (much greater distance) two-wire line. Thus
although as described here the line 12 is a telephone subscriber line,
it can be appreciated that the same arrangement of master and slave
modems operating in accordance with the new protocol can be used
to communicate Ethernet frames via any twisted pair wiring which is
too long to permit conventional JOBASE-T or similar LAN
interconnections . . It can be seen from the above description that
embodiments of the invention are centered on the arrangement and
functioning of the modems 32 and 34.
.

.

.

.

.

895 Patent 9:32-10:8 (emphasis added). Where the specification clearly limits the invention to a

particular form, and it is clear no broader scope was contemplated, it is proper to construe the claims
consistently with that limitation. In re Rembrandt Technologies, LP, 496 F. App'x 36, 45 (Fed. Cir.
2012); Kinik Co.

v.

Int'l Trade Comm'n., 362 F.3d 1359, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 2004). By detailing

several specific alternate embodiments, the Terry patents clearly contemplate several types of

communication paths. However, the preceding passage, read in light of the patent as a whole, makes
it clear that the patents' scope is limited to a communication path between modems consisting of

twisted-pair wiring that is too long to permit conventional LAN interconnections. This limitation is
consistent with the entire written description of the patent and all disclosed embodiments. To
conclude otherwise would allow the patent to expand impermissibly beyond what the inventor

invented and sought to claim before the Patent Office.
Contrary to Innovative Wireless's argument, this case is distinguishable from Hill-Rom. In
Hill-Rom, the term "datalink" was only described as wired in depictions of preferred embodiments

19

and never when describing the datalink generally.

Hill-Rom,

755 F.3d at 1374. In the Terry patents,

the communications path is described as a two-wire line and a two-wire telephone subscriber line in

descriptions of preferred embodiments. The patentee specifically noted that those examples were
alternate embodiments. However, the specification makes plain that embodimentswhich this court
understands to mean all embodimentscould be enabled which utilized any twisted-pair wiring too
long for conventional LAN interconnections. The court finds that no additional construction is

required for the word bidirectional, and that a person having ordinary skill in the art would
comprehend its meaning.
Therefore, the court construes the terms "bidirectional communications path" to mean

"bidirectional communications path utilizing twisted-pair wiring that is too long to permit
conventional 1OBASE-T or similar LAN (Local Area Network) interconnections" and
"communications path" to mean "communications path utilizing twisted-pair wiring that is too

long to permit conventional 1OBASE-T or similar LAN interconnections."

4. "information frame"

Although Cisco believes that no construction of this term is necessary, both parties agree, at
least in the alternative, that an information frame is a group of bits which are transmitted over a

network as a unit. Thus, the crux of the dispute over this term is whether an information frame must
include a data field. Cisco contends that Innovative Wireless's construction including a "data field"
is ambiguous as to the scope of data. According to Cisco, it is unclear whether data includes control

and error-checking information. Cisco argues that when an information frame is required by the

claims to have a particular structure, the claims themselves describe that structure. Cisco further
20

argues that the specification does not support the data field limitation. Finally, Cisco notes that the

specification repeatedly refers generically to both data payloads and control bits as "information."

Innovative Wireless argues that the specification teaches that an information frame is a
particular type of frame, one that carries information; Innovative Wireless contends that these are
distinct from control frames, which Innovative Wireless argues contain no data. Innovative Wireless
argues that the patentee uses information frame and data frame interchangeably. limovative Wireless
contends that if the patentee intended information frame to mean any kind of frame, the patentee just

would have called it a frame.
The patents' specification only references information frames in one paragraph, providing

little additional guidance as to the term's definition. An information frame is introduced as something
that envelopes an information packet and has an error check field. '895 Patent, 3:58-59. The

information frame may or may not contain control information from the master modern or response
information from the slave modem. '895 Patent, 3:62-65. If the control and response information
is not included in the information frame, it may be sent in further frames. '895 Patent, 3:62-65. The

distinction between the information frames and other frames is the encapsulation of information
packets. Consistently throughout the patents-in-suit, and in every claim that describes information
frames, information frames envelop information packets. Additionally, within the context of the
Terry patents, every information packet is received from or destined to the CSMA/CD path.
The court construes the term "information frame" to mean "a group of bits transmitted as
a

unit over a network that contains an information packet and is received from or destined to

the CSMAICD path."

21

5.

"enveloping information packets in information frames" I "enveloping information corresponding

to at least one

of the

1.. .1

information packets in at least one [...1 information frame"

The parties' dispute over this term centers on whether enveloped information packets must
be intact Ethernet frames. Cisco argues that communicating Ethernet frames is the stated goal of the

invention. Ciscto further argues that the specification consistently uses "enveloping" to describe
encapsulating an intact Ethernet frame into an ECAP (Ethernet Collision Avoidance Protocol) frame.
By using the term envelop, Cisco argues, the patentee intended to capture the specific embodiment

illustrated in Figure 9.

Innovative Wireless contends that Cisco's construction rewrites the claims to import
additional limitations without a textual basis from the intrinsic record. Moreover, limovative

Wireless argues that Cisco's use of "intact" in its construction violates the doctrine of intra-claim

differentiation. Innovative Wireless contends that since an intact Ethernet frame contains an error

check field, Cisco's construction would render the language describing the error check field in the
information frame superfluous.

Cisco's proposed construction is unwieldy and is not directly supported by the claim language
or specification. More importantly, with the exception of "information packets" and the previously

defined "information frame," there are no words in the disputed claim phrases which require

construction beyond their plain and ordinary meaning. The phrases contain straightforward, easily

understood language that is not technical in nature. The court must not rewrite claim language
without a textual hook in the claim language. NTP,

Inc.

v.

Research

1363 (Fed. Cir. 2004). The court concludes that the only part

requires construction is "information packets."

22

in

Motion, Ltd.,

392 F.3d 1336,

of the disputed claim term that truly

The patents' specification describes an information packet as distinct from an Ethernet frame.
It is unequivocal from the specification, the patents' described embodiments, and the claim language

that information packets may contain all or certain parts of Ethernet frames. Also, it is clear that
although information packets are "generally referred to as Ethernet frames," they are not identical;
otherwise the patentee would have only referred to Ethernet frames instead of the generic information

packets.
The court therefore concludes that the phrases "enveloping information packets in information

frames" and "enveloping information corresponding to at least one of the [...] information packets
in at least one [...} information frame" are to be given their plain and ordinary meaning. The court
further construes "information packets" to mean "units of data for transmission over networks that

contain all or part of an Ethernet frame."

6.

"control information"
The parties disagree that this term needs to be construed. Cisco contends that control

information is central to the claimed invention and that Cisco's construction ensures that the asserted

claims' scope remain aligned with the invention. Cisco argues that the patents-in-suit repeatedly
teach that the inventions' half-duplex communications use a collision avoidance protocol. As
explained in the specification, the protocol defines that the master modem has priority and control
over the slave modem. The master modem determines when the slave modem may send information

via the bidirectional communications path. The control by the master modem avoids collisions on
the communications path. Cisco contends that collision avoidance is not simply a desired goal, but
is the absolute result because the master modem-control scheme ensures that collisions cannot occur.

23

Cisco further argues that the patents-in-suit's prosecution history confirms the importance of the

master modem-control scheme.

Cisco argues that the patentee took the position that control

information was a novel aspect of the rejected claim in order to overcome prior-art rejection. Finally,
Cisco contends that Innovative Wireless's argument about the specification's reference to an

unexpected frame rnischaracterizes the specification. According to Cisco, the specification describes
the unexpected-frame scenario as indicative of an error condition where some but not all of the

expected response was lost during transmission, not, as Irmovative Wireless contends, when the slave
modern sends data that the master modem did not permit.

Innovative Wireless contends that Cisco's proposed construction improperly imports
limitations from preferred embodiments and that Cisco ' s construction is unsupported by the intrinsic
record. Innovative Wireless further argues that each claim containing the term has its own specific

language detailing how control information is defined in that claim. Innovative Wireless contends
that it would be improper to override each specific choice of claim language with Cisco's proposed

construction. Innovative Wireless also argues that the specification addresses that the master modem
may receive unexpected frames, meaning that the patent contemplates that the master modem caimot
truly dictate when the slave modem sends data.

The language used in the claim defines the scope of the invention. Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1312.

Independent Claim

1

and dependent Claims 4 and

5

of the '895 Patent describe a control regime

where the master interface to the communications path supplies control information and the slave
interface depends on that control information to transmit data. In the '264 Patent, Claim

5

describes

a master apparatus that contains a control unit that produces control information to control a slave

apparatus to provide half-duplex communications. Claim

24

8

of the '264 Patent describes the

corresponding slave unit that responds to the control information. Independent Claims 1 and

11

and

dependent Claims 14 and 16 of the '473 patent describe a similar control regime where the first
modern sends control information to a second modem to enable half-duplex communications.

Further, Claims 26 and 35 of the '473 Patent describe a master modem that sends control information
to control a slave modem to enable half-duplex communications. In contrast, Claim 48 of the '895

Patent and claims 30 and 31 of the '473 Patent describe another arrangement; in these claims both
the first/master and the second/slave ends are comprised, in part, of a control unit.
In sum, the claims as a whole describe a control scheme where the control units on both ends

of the communications path exchange control information in order to facilitate half-duplex
communications. Moreover, the patents-in-suit's prosecution history acknowledges that the master
modem control scheme was a distinguishing feature for the claims dealing with that control scheme.
The prosecution history further reflects that the exchange of control information to enable half-duplex
communications is the crux of the distinguishing features which allowed patentability over the prior
art.
The court construes "control information," read in light of how it is used in the Terry Patents'

claims and specification and interpreted in light of the patents' prosecution history, to mean

"information exchanged on the communications path to enable half-duplex communications."

7. "supplying information packets ... to the communications path in dependence upon the control

information"
8.

"wherein the control information and the dependence on the control information

to avoid collisions

{.

.1

[.

.

are arranged

.]

between information packets communicated from the first buffer to the

second buffer and information packets communicated from the third buffer to the fourth buffer"
Cisco seeks to rewrite these two claim phrases with language it argues will facilitate an

understanding of the "scope of the claims in the context of the" Teny Patents. Cisco argues that its
construction is consistent with the patents' "requiring that information is provided to the path 'under
control of and in response to received control information." Innovative Wireless counters that the
claim phrase has an easily understood plain and ordinary meaning and any necessary clarification to
the phrase can be accomplished by defining individual words or phrases that might be confusing to
a jury.

The court concludes that these two disputed phrases are composed of words that have plain
and ordinary meanings and, when read in the light of the specification and the court's other

constructions, a person of ordinary skill in the art would easily comprehend each phrase's meaning
without further elaboration. The court will not engage in rewriting lengthy claim phrases without
specific textual guidance in the specification or intrinsic record.

Accordingly, the court concludes that "supplying information packets ... to the communications
path in dependence upon the control information" and "wherein the control information and the

dependence on the control information

[.

.

.]

are arranged to avoid collisions

[.

.

]

between

information packets communicated from the first buffer to the second buffer and information packets

26

communicated from the third buffer to the fourth buffer" are to be given their plain and ordinary

meaning with no additional construction required.

9. "control unit"

10. "control unit is

responsive to control information, from another apparatus coupled to the

communications path"
Cisco concedes in its opening brief that "at first blush, one might interpret the phrase [control

information] to mean simply a unit that controls." Due to the presumption that a claim term carries
its plain and ordinary meaning, in order for the court to adopt an alternative construction, Cisco must

show that the patentee acted as his own lexicographer or included in the specification expressions of
manifest exclusion or restriction, representing a clear disavowal of claim scope. Thorner

v.

Sony

Computer Entertainment America, LLC, 669 F.3d 1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (citations omitted).
Innovative Wireless argues that Cisco has made no such showing and that Cisco's reliance on
language describing preferred embodiments improperly limits the claim language.
The court finds that nowhere in that body of the patent does the patentee define control unit

in a way different from the plain and ordinary meaning of the term as would have been understood
by a person having ordinary skill in the art of the invention. Neither does the patentee disavow claim

scope or indicate exclusions or restrictions on the term. The usage of "control unit" in the claims is

clear, and there is no indication that further definition is required by the context of the claims or
specification. Furthermore, with regard to the phrase "control unit is responsive. . .," the court finds

that the remaining words in the phrase are clear and readily understood. There is no indication in the

27

intrinsic record that the court need adopt Cisco's rewriting of the disputed claim phrase, as each of
the remaining wordsalone and in conjunctionhave an easily understood meaning.

Accordingly, the court concludes that "control unit" and "control unit is responsive to control
information, from another apparatus coupled to the communications path" are to be given their plain

and ordinary meaning.

11.

"half duplex communications"; "half duplex maimer"

12. "using

half duplex communications controlled by the first modem"

The parties present opposed arguments regarding the inventions' half-duplex communications

terms. The court finds each side's arguments misplaced in light of the clear definition introduced
early in the patents' specification:

The half duplex communications, which can alternatively be
considered as time division duplex or time compression multiplex
communications, avoid collisions or interference between information
packets communicated in the two directions of communication on the
communications path by ensuring that the communications in the two
directions take place at different times.

'895 Patent, 3:47-53 (emphasis added). The court concludes that this unequivocal statement defining
the inventions' half-duplex communications indicates how the patentee intended for the term to be

understood in the context of the patents' claims.
Therefore, the court construes "half duplex communications" and "half duplex maimer" to

mean "communications which avoid collisions or interference between information packets

communicated in the two directions of communication on the communications path by ensuring

that the communications in the two directions take place at different times." The court further

concludes that the term phrase "using half duplex communications controlled by the first modem"

should be given its plain and ordinary meaning in light of the court's construction of "half duplex

communications."

13. "master rnodem" "slave modern"

The nature of the relationship between the master and slave modems is the focus of the

parties' dispute over this term, which appears in the '473 Patent's independent Claim 26. Cisco
argues that the master modem must have "complete control," and that the slave modem supplies

information to the communications path "only in response to" information received from the master
modern. The court finds, however, that Cisco attempts to import limitations that are not present in

the claim language and not supported by the patent's specification. Innovative Wireless correctly

argues that the relationship between the master and slave modems is described in the claim itself: "the
master modem controls the slave modem by control information

... so that communications of at

least the information corresponding to the Ethernet frames on the bidirectional communications path
take place in a half-duplex rnarmer.

.

.

."

'473 Patent, Claim 26. Further, the specification is

consistent with the term's usage in the claim language and does not support Cisco's insertion of
additional limitations on the terms. The court agrees with Innovative Wireless that the use of these

terms in the patent is also "consistent with the well understood meaning in the computer and
networking fields that 'master' and 'slave' refers to a general concept of control.

.

.

." The court finds

that a person of ordinary skill in the art would readily understand the terms as used in the claim and
further informed by the specification.

29

Accordingly, the court concludes that "master modem" and "slave modem" are to be given
their plain and ordinary meaning with no further construction required.

14.

"multiplexing the modem"

15. "multiplexing signals

of the first modem"

Cisco argues that these two terms are indefinite. See 35 U.S.C.

§

112. Although the parties

initially briefed and argued at the claim-construction hearing using the Federal Circuit's earlier

standard for indefiniteness, both parties submitted additional briefing to update their argument to
incorporate the new standard reflected in the Supreme Court's recent Nautilus decision. A patent is
invalid for indefiniteness "if its claims, read in light of the specification delineating the patent, and
the prosecution history, fail to inform, with reasonable certainty, those skilled in the art about the

scope of the invention." Nautilus, Inc.

v.

Biosig Instruments, Inc., 134 S. Ct. 2120, 2124 (2014).

Cisco contends that the Terry Patents' specification essentially describes multiplexing "as a

term of art that is defined consistently with its usage," but that the claims use the term multiplexing
"in an ambiguous and possibly opposite way." Cisco argues that it is unclear if the claim language
is referring to an act as multiplexing that could be more correctly understood as demultiplexing;

therefore, according to Cisco, the claims are indefinite.

Innovative Wireless argues that the

specification makes it clear that the term multiplexing, as used in the claims, includes both directions

of the multiplexing process performed by the master modem, and contends that multiplexing as
generally used in the claims combines the "multiplexing" and "demultiplexing" directions.
The patents' specification supports Innovative Wireless's argument: "the master modem 34
can provide multiplexed operations for a plurality of slave modems, so that in practice the

30

transmitting and receiving processes can take place simultaneously and independently in a
multiplexed maimer."

'895

Patent 14:26-36. The specifications and claims consistently describe the

overall multiplexing arrangement of one preferred embodiment with multiple slave modems per

master modem.

Additionally, the claims containing these terms expressly describe the

communications path as bidirectional, Therefore, the modem must multiplex and demultiplex
information sent over the communications path; this is consistent with a usage of the term

"multiplexing" to describe the overall multiplexing process.
The court concludes that the claim terms, when read in light of the specification, provide
substantial guidance for a person skilled in the art to understand the bounds of the term, and therefore
the scope of the invention. A person of ordinary skill in the art of the Terry Patents would be able
to discern, with reasonable certainty, from the context of the claim and the terms' usage in the

specification, what multiplexing means in the context of these disputed claim terms. Therefore, the
court finds that these claim terms are not indefinite.

Moreover, as used in the patent, multiplexing is a well-defined and previously known

technique that would have a clearly understood meaning to a person of ordinary skill in the art.

Nothing in the claim language or specification demonstrates that the patentee intended anything other
than the plain and ordinary meaning of the term.
Therefore, the court concludes that "multiplexing the modem" and "multiplexing signals of
the first modem" should be given their plain and ordinary meaning with no further construction
required.

31

16.

"multiplexer

.

.

for multiplexed connections via respective buffers to respective communication

paths"
Cisco argues that its proposed construction provides clarity and is based on the intrinsic
record. Innovative Wireless again argues that the disputed phrase contains words that are easily

understood combined with words which have either already been defined or individual words that can
be defined; limovative Wireless opposes Cisco's attempt at wholesale rewriting

of the claim phrase.

In light of the court's previous constructions and the court's conclusion that the disputed
phrase contains easily understood words that have a clear meaninga meaning that a person having
skill in the art would understand without further elaborationthe court concludes that this disputed

phrase shall be given its plain and ordinary meaning with no further construction required.

17.

"MAC-layer packet grouping of data that is grouped to fit into one MAC-layer packet of

CSMAICD networks"
Cisco argues that this term is indefinite under the Nautilus standard. Cisco asserts that

because the phrase does not appear in its entirety in the specification there is uncertainty about its
meaning. Additionally, Cisco argues that the specification does not describe how the "grouping of

data" can be "grouped to fit" into a MAC-layer7 packet. Innovative Wireless argues that the
specification "plainly discloses one such way of grouping to fit." Additionally, Innovative Wireless
argues that the "longstanding rule that phrases in the claims need not be recited word-for-word in the

specification" has not been upset by the Nautilus decision. See Bancorp Servs., LLC v. Harford Life
Ins. Co., 359 F.3d 1367, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2004).

The initialism "MAC" stands for Medium Access Control.
32

The court finds Innovative Wireless's citation to the specification instructive. In describing
one embodiment, the patentee disclosed that "refinements can include provisions for sending multiple
data frames successively in either direction as described above, concatenating or merging control

and/or data frames sent in the same direction." '895 Patent, 17:31-35. Additionally, the specification
introduces the term MAC-layer. The court has construed CSMA/CD in this order. In light of the

disclosures in the specification, the court concludes that the specification provides adequate guidance
for a person skilled in the art to understand the bounds of the claim term. Therefore, the court

concludes that the claim is not indefinite under the Nautilus standard. Nautilus, 134 S. Ct. at 2124.
Further, as each word (or group of words) in the disputed claim phrase has a meaning that
would be readily understood on its own or when read in light of the specification, the court concludes
that this term shall be given its plain and ordinary meaning with no further construction required.

18. "MAC layer grouping

of information on the CSMA/CD path"

Cisco argues that this disputed claim phrase, which only appears as a complete phrase in the

'473 Patent's Claim 41, contains highly technical language and requires a construction for jury
comprehension. Cisco contends that its construction, which rewrites the entire phrase, is supported
by the intrinsic record. Cisco urges that the only disclosed "grouping of data" at the MAC-layer is

an "Ethernet frame." Further, Cisco directs the court to the '473 Patent's prosecution history to

support its arguments that the patentee represented that the specification "describes the format of an

Ethernet frame at the MAC layer." (emphasis omitted).
Innovative Wireless responds that the disputed phrase merely constitutes a handful of
technical terms connected with everyday English words, which are entitled to their ordinary meaning.

33

The court agrees. As previously discussed, the use of MAC layer is consistent with its usage in the

specification and would be easily understood by a person having ordinary skill in the art. CSMA/CD
has already been defined by the court. There is nothing in the intrinsic record that rises to the level

of disavowal or lexicography that indicates to the court that the remainder of the phrase carries
anything other than its plain and ordinary meaning.
The court concludes that "MAC layer grouping of information on the CSMA/CD path" shall
be given its plain and ordinary meaning with no further construction required.

19.

"the half duplex communications are MAC-layer half-duplex such that once information

corresponding to a first MAC-layer packet grouping of data has begun to be transmitted into the
bidirectional communications path the information corresponding to the first MAC-layer packet
grouping of data is completely transmitted into the bidirectional communications path before

information corresponding to a second MAC-layer packet grouping of data is allowed to begin to be

transmitted into the bidirectional communications path"
Cisco characterizes the dispute over this lengthy claim phrase as being focused on the meaning

of "completely transmitted." Cisco also urges that the dispute is similar to the parties dispute over
the "half-duplex"

terms.8

Cisco contends that completely transmitted "means exactly that;" still,

Cisco proposes to rewrite the claim phrase in its entirety to clarify that "once a device begins

transmission of a frame, a device at the other end of the path cannot begin a transmission until that
device received the previously transmitted frame." Innovative Wireless argues that the claim phrase

See

discussion supra, pp. 27-28.
34

should be afforded its plain and ordinary meaning and that the specification does not support the

narrow construction Cisco seeks.
The court finds that the claim phrase, read in its entirety, is composed of a combination of

technical terms, some of which have been construed by this court, and readily understand English
words; a person having ordinaiy skill in the art would be able to understand the claim phrase readily

and comprehend the meaning based on the teaching of the specification and the claim language itself.

Despite Cisco's argument that the patent teaches that collisions are "prevented," the court does not
find such a clear statement that would warrant adoption of Cisco's narrow construction. The

specification anticipates, in at least some embodiments, the possibility of unexpected frames or other
devices on the communications path erroneously transmitting frames despite the control scheme

implemented by the invention. The court agrees with Cisco that "completely transmitted" means
exactly what it says; that meaning requires no further elaboration, nor does the remainder of the claim

phrase.
The court concludes that the disputed claim phrase "the half duplex comnmnications are

MAC-layer half-duplex.

.

.

into the bidirectional communications path" shall be given its plain and

ordinary meaning with no further construction required.

20. "changing direction of communication of MAC layer groupings of information ... after the

completion of transmission of the information corresponding to the first information packet"
The parties' dispute over this term is focused on the meaning of "after the completion of

transmission." Cisco argues only that the control scheme taught by the Teny Patents requires
"waiting" by the slave device and operating only in response to a received frame. Cisco seeks a

'-I

construction that the flow on the communications path changes only after a transmitted frame is
received. Innovative Wireless argues that Cisco's construction should be rejected based upon the

language in the claim itself, and that the term should be given its plain and ordinary meaning.
The court looks first to the language of the claim to determine the proper construction of a

disputed term; here the language is perfectly clear. Innovative Wireless is correct that the claim
language itself says the direction of transmission is changed after the completion of transmission; it
does not say the direction is changed after the reception of the groupings of information. The

specification sections cited by Cisco do not rise to the level of expression of manifest exclusion or

restriction sufficient to justify an adoption of Cisco's rewriting of the claim language. Furthermore,
the language used in this disputed claim phrase is normal, everyday English and has a plain meaning
that would be evident to a person having ordinary skill in the art.
The court concludes that the disputed term "changing direction of communication

corresponding to the first information packet" shall be given its plain and ordinary meaning with
no further construction required.

B.

Summary Table ofAdopted Constructions

Court's Construction

Claim Term/Phrase
1.

CSMA/CD (Carrier Sense Multiple Access
with Collision Detection) as defined in either

"CSMA/CD"

'895: (Claims
51-53

1, 6, 7, 15, 16,

theIEEE8O2.3Standardorthel985Version
2 Standard for Ethernet

27-37, 40, 48,

)

'264: (Claims 5, 8)

'473: (Claims

1, 10, 11, 17, 18,

25, 26, 30, 32,

33, 35, 39-42)

36

2. "CSMA/CD interface"

[plain and ordinary meaning]

'895: (Claims 1, 6, 7, 15, 16, 27-37, 40, 48,
51-53)

'264: (Claims 5, 8)
'473: (Claims 1, 10, 25, 26, 30, 35, 39-42)

"bidirectional communications path";
"communications path"

bidirectional communications path utilizing
twisted-pair wiring that is too long to permit
conventional 1OBASE-T or similar LAN
(Local Area Network) interconnections

3.

'895: (Claims 1, 3-12, 15, 17-20, 27-37, 40, 48,
49, 5 1-53)

communications path utilizing twisted-pair
wiring that is too long to permit conventional
1OBASE-T or similar LAN interconnections

'264: (Claims 5-9)
'473: (Claims 1,3,4,7-9, 11, 15, 17-19, 22-24,
26, 30-3 5, 37, 38, 40-42)
4. "information frame"

a group of bits transmitted as a unit over a

'895: (Claims 3, 4)

network that contains an information packet
and is received from or destined to the
CSMA/CD path

'473: (Claims 2, 12, 13, 36)

"enveloping information packets in
information frames";

[plain and ordinary meaning]

5.

"information packets": units of data for
transmission over networks that contain all
or part of an Ethernet frame

"enveloping information corresponding to at
least one of the [...] information packets in at
least one [...] information frame"
'895: (Claim 3)
'473: (Claims 2, 12, 36)

37

6.

information exchanged

on the
path to enable half-duplex
communications
communications

"Control information"

'895: (Claims

1,

4, 5, 48)

'264: (Claims 5, 8)

'473: (Claims

1, 11, 14, 16,

26, 30, 31, 35)

[plain and ordinary meaning]

"supplying information packets [...] to the
communications path in dependence upon the
control information"
7.

'895: (Claim 1)

[plain and ordinary meaningi

"wherein the control information and the
dependence on the control information
are
arranged to avoid collisions
between
]
information packets communicated from the
first buffer to the second buffer and information
packets communicated from the third buffer to
the fourth buffer"
8.

[.

[.

.]

.

'895: (Claim 1)
9.

[plain and ordinary meaning

"control unit"

'895: (Claim 48)
'264: (Claims 5, 8)
'473: (Claim 30)

[plain and ordinary meaning]

"control unit is responsive to control
information, from another apparatus coupled to
the communications path"
10.

'264: (Claim 8)

38

11.
"half duplex communications"; "half "communications which avoid collisions or
duplex maimer"
interference between information packets
communicated in the two directions of
'895: (Claim 48)
communication on the communications path
by ensuring that the communications in the
'264: (Claims 5, 8)
two directions take place at different times"

'473: (Claims 1,2, 11,26,30,35,36)
"using half duplex communications
controlled by the first modem"

[plain and ordinary meaning]

12.

'473: (Claims 1,35)
13. "master modem"; "slave modem"

[plain and ordinary meaning]

'473: (Claim 26)
14. "multiplexing the

modem"

[not indefinite]
[plain and ordinary meaning]

'895: (Claims 12, 20)

of the first modem"

[not indefinite]
[plain and ordinary meaning]

"multiplexer
for multiplexed
connections via respective buffers to respective
communication paths"

[plain and ordinary meaning]

15. "multiplexing signals

'473: (Claims 5, 20)
16.

.

.

'895: (Claim 51)
17. "MAC-layer packet grouping of data that is

[not indefinite]
[plain and ordinary meaning]

grouped to fit into one MAC-layer packet of
CSMAICD networks"

'473: (Claims

1,

11,26,30,35)

18. "MAC layer grouping of information on the

[plain and ordinary meaning]

CSMA/CD path"
'473: (Claim 41)

39

"the half duplex communications are [plain and ordinary meaningi
MAC-layer half-duplex such that once
information corresponding to a first MAC-layer
packet grouping of data has begun to be
19.

transmitted

into

communications

the

bidirectional

path the

information

corresponding to the first MAC-layer packet
grouping of data is completely transmitted into
the bidirectional communications path before
information corresponding to a second
MAC-layer packet grouping of data is allowed
to begin to be transmitted into the bidirectional
communications path"
'473: (Claim 35)

20. "changing direction of communication of
MAC layer groupings of information ... after
the completion of transmission of the
information corresponding to the first

information packet"
'473: (Claim 40)

40

[plain and ordinary meaning]

4.

Conclusion
For the above reasons, the court construes the disputed claims as noted and so ORDERS. No

further claim terms require construction.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this case is SET for a Scheduling Conference on March
9, 2015, at 2:00 p.m., in Courtroom 7, Seventh Floor, United States Courthouse, 501 W. 5th Street,

Austin, Texas 78701. The parties shall meet and confer in advance of that date in an attempt to settle
this case. If the case is not settled, the parties shall confer in an attempt to reach agreement on a

schedule to follow for the remainder of this case. The court will render a Scheduling Order as a result

of the March 9, 2015 conference.
SIGNED this

day of January, 2015

LEE7(

IITED ST%TES DI(TRICT JUDGE

41